DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 03/18/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by GREEN et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210028692, hereinafter ‘692).
Claim 1, ‘692 teaches a converter system (e.g., see Fig. 3-13) comprising:
a first bidirectional converter (e.g., 410) electrically connected between a first node (e.g., the node connecting 410) and a second node (e.g., the node connecting 224, see [0075] Fig. 3-4); and a second bidirectional converter (e.g., 420) electrically connected between the first node and the second node in parallel with the first bidirectional converter (e.g., see Fig. 3-4), wherein current is shared between the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter based on a single current-sharing signal (e.g., Final Current Demand, see Fig. 5-11).
Claim 2, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the first node provides an input voltage or an output voltage (e.g., DC voltage of 404 or DC voltage of 224, see Fig. 3-4), when the first node provides the input voltage, the second node provides the output voltage (e.g., when direction of conversion from DC voltage of 404 or DC voltage of 224, see Fig. 3-4), and when the first node provides the output voltage, the second node provides the input voltage (e.g., when direction of conversion from DC voltage of 224 or DC voltage of 404, see Fig. 3-4).
Claim 3, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein each of the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter includes a first current-sense circuit (e.g., 326) connected to the first node and a second current- sense circuit (e.g., 336) connected to the second node (e.g., 336, see Fig. 3-4).
Claim 5, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the first bidirectional converter further includes a voltage-follower circuit (e.g., 620) and a controller (e.g., the control circuit of 326), and the voltage-follower circuit is connected to the controller (e.g., see Fig. 5-11).
Claim 12, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein each of the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter includes a first current-sense circuit (e.g., the current-sense circuit of 326) and a second current sensing circuit (e.g., the current-sense circuit of 332, see Fig. 3).
Claim 13, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising a third bidirectional converter (e.g., 430) electrically connected between the first node and the second node in parallel with the first and second bidirectional converters, wherein current is shared among the first, the second, and the third bidirectional converters based on the single current-sharing signal (e.g., see Fig. 3-11).
Claim 14, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising a system controller that outputs a power-direction signal (e.g., Desired OFF Period, see [0136]) to the first and the second bidirectional converters (e.g., see [0136][0138], Fig. 5, 11).
Claim 15, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein a current value of each output current of the first and the second bidirectional converters is determined based on the power-direction signal (e.g., see [0136][0138], Fig. 5, 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GREEN et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210028692, hereinafter ‘692), in view of GUO et al. (CN110868068A, hereinafter ‘511).
Claim 4, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. ‘692 does not explicitly disclose that wherein at least one of the first and second current-sense circuits includes a resistor or a Hall-effect sensor.
Guo discloses a bidirectional DC converter (e.g., see Abstract; Fig. 1-4). It further discloses that wherein at least one of the first and second current-sense circuits includes a resistor or a Hall-effect sensor (e.g., see [0010], claim 4, Fig. 1-4).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘692 by including the resistor or a Hall-effect sensor as taught by Guo in order of being able to provide phase current sensing (e.g., see [0010], claim4, Fig. 1-4).
Claims 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over GREEN et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210028692, hereinafter ‘692), in view of Charles (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20070217230, hereinafter ‘230).
Claims 10, 11, ‘692 teaches the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. ‘692 further disclose that wherein the voltage-follower circuit 620 the first bidirectional converter further includes a First Comparison Module 1004 to compare the first local current with Final Current Demand. ‘692 does not explicitly disclose that wherein the voltage-follower circuit 620 or the First Comparison Module 1004 includes a diode or/and an amplifier circuit.
‘230 discloses a DC converter (e.g., 100 see Fig. 1-4). It further discloses that wherein the voltage-follower circuit or the First Comparison Module (e.g., 210, 212) includes an amplifier circuit (e.g., 222, 242) and a diode (e.g., 236, 254, see claim4, Fig. 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the voltage-follower circuit of ‘692 by including the amplifier and a diode as taught by ‘230 in order of being able to provide current comparison result as required (e.g., see Fig. 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matters:
For claim 6, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily, “wherein: the controller outputs a local current signal to the voltage-follower circuit, and the voltage-follower circuit receives the local current signal and outputs the single current-sharing signal”.
For claim 7, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily, “wherein the controller: receives the single current-sharing signal, calculates a pulse width modulation (PWM) duty cycle to set a predetermined output current at the first node or the second node, and outputs a PWM signal based on the PWM duty cycle”.
For claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, “wherein the controller: receives the single current-sharing signal, calculates a pulse frequency modulation (PFM) value to set a predetermined output current at the first node or the second node, and outputs a PFM signal based on the PFM value”.
For claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, “wherein the controller: receives the single current-sharing signal, calculates a phase shift modulation value to set a predetermined output current at the first node or the second node, and outputs a phase shift modulation signal based on the phase shift modulation value”.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the remarks filed on 02/26/2018 have been considered have been fully considered and please see the examiner's responses for the reasons as discussed below.
Applicants stated on pages 6-7 of the REMARKS:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
52
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
44
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
252
568
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
46
554
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Response:
Applicant's above arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As it is clearly shown in the copies of Fig. 3, 4, 11 (below) of the prior art, ‘692 discloses a bidirectional multiphase converter system comprising: a first bidirectional converter (e.g., the 1st phase 410) electrically connected between a first node (e.g., the node connecting 410) and a second node the node connecting 224 and 306; and a second bidirectional converter the 2nd phase 420) electrically connected between the first node and the second node in parallel with the first bidirectional converter, wherein current is shared between the first bidirectional converter and the second bidirectional converter when the output current supplied to the DC Bus/Load by the bidirectional multiphase converter comprising the shared portion of the current of 410 and 420 based on a single current-sharing signal being the output of the current by 410 and 420 are function of a shared single signal Final Current Demand to both 410 and 420 as shown in Fig. 11, just as the argued limitation as recited in the claim.
In further response to Applicant’s argument regarding ‘692’s blanking signal turning off the switching modules of the corresponding phases, Examiner would respectfully remind Applicant that as prior art disclosed in the Abstract, Turning OFF the switches of each respective phases DURING DESIRED OFF period is function of the input AND output voltage of the converter, not relating to or function of the shared output current during the shared current output to load period. Since in the argued claim Applicant does not require the converter outputting shared current 100% of time, or the switching circuits of each of the converters can only be controlled by the single I_SHARE signal, as an example Applicant’s POWER DIRECTION SIGNAL as input signal does change the way how the switching circuits of the converters work, it is Examiner’s position that ‘692 anticipates the argued limitations as recited in the claim.
Therefore, for at least the reasons as discussed above, the grounds of the claim rejections are maintained in the current office action, and the current office action is made FINAL.
PNG
media_image7.png
178
880
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
524
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
518
744
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5:00PM EST, Other F 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights